Re: [OAUTH-WG] signatures, v2

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 11:27 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8033A69CB for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ep+sHvfwrtuX for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420C93A6960 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o6LBRL6Q005560 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:27:21 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1279711641; bh=FAWfhocc6vSEV8zGJYnQ+LVMoDU=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=a3vX2Mh5kzNnlEl36W3RO2VCW/CLzvCBsH9BgFmr2G7iuM33Lt+thIvQKvqntj8FR qPc2X+CNH9s6F+O4x6S4w==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=uTPzzVn2btWAfscgWeMvZ6MaI6Hi1ivlFGCFmGqCmPP+SlsqavV/klL3pBN4vaEHs fNNvYcnFoTPW2RO5AlixA==
Received: from pzk10 (pzk10.prod.google.com [10.243.19.138]) by kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o6LBRJmK024299 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:27:20 -0700
Received: by pzk10 with SMTP id 10so2378266pzk.4 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.147.7 with SMTP id u7mr2115wfd.221.1279711639413; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.132.2 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim7pvrLnQtz4WnDvYVRv0jbWgk3j8uMJj07CsM1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim7pvrLnQtz4WnDvYVRv0jbWgk3j8uMJj07CsM1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:27:19 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTiksmTe5OYC10RtKRWV=adqnBrnaRsnD5EhxfEx6@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] signatures, v2
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:27:07 -0000

On 16 July 2010 01:43, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> after reading through the feedback, we did a pass over the OAuth signature
> proposals.
> As a reminder, there are three documents:
> - a document (called "JSON Tokens") that just explains how to sign something
> and verify the signature:
> http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1kv6Oz_HRnWa0DaJx_SQ5Qlk_yqs_7zNAm75-FmKwNo4
>
> - an extension of JSON Tokens that can be used for signed OAuth tokens:
> http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1JUn3Twd9nXwFDgi-fTKl-unDG_ndyowTZW8OWX9HOUU
> - a different extension of JSON Tokens that can be used whenever the spec
> calls for an "assertion":
> http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1s4kjRS9P0frG0ulhgP3He01ONlxeTwkFQV_pCoOowzc
> (When used in the assertion flow, this last token can also be used to do
> "2-legged" OAuth)
>
> A summary of the (scant) changes:
> - we spelled out what we mean by RSA-SHA256. Ben Laurie - can you
> double-check that that sounds good?

Nearly missed this, somehow. Yes, looks good to me. A reference would
be nice (RFC 3447, for example).

> - we decided on unpadded websafe-base64 throughout.
> - some changes to parameter names.
> - some small changes I might be forgetting now...
> As explained in my message to the previous thread, there is still no
> envelope in there to help with encrypted tokens (b/c we don't understand
> well enough what the envelopes for encrypted tokens would look like).
> One question: What's the deal with having the signature go first? If you can
> explain to me why that is a good idea, I'm happy to oblige.
> Cheers,
> Dirk & Marius.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>